The
Evolution of Love

Since
time began, love has always been a preoccupation
in our society, however, little consideration has
been given by science, and even less has there been
an attempt to thoroughly explain it in an evolutionary
fashion. While there are many behavioral types of
love, from animal, empathy, group feeling, sexuality,
parental, to friendship, the principal issues seem
to be having do involve the sexual and parental variety.

In
science, sexuality has addressed extensively, and
its connection to the bond of love. In addition,
few have discussed the characteristics which distinguish
it from love. The parental bond alone, does not fully
account for the characteristics of human love.

Studies
have shown that love evolved as the outcome of interaction
between the genetic basis for parental (usually mother/infant)
attachment. Physical attributes evolving human manifested
that attachment, in the increase in human brain size:
enlarged cognitive capacity, improved communication
abilities and the evolution of language. The capacity
for language then led to the emergence of the conscious
self, from which the ability to recognize and empathize
surfaced.

Both
empathy and love develop and are expressed mostly
in the family, between parents, children, and is transferred
within the family, which forms a nucleus from which
a wider group feeling can develop. Logically, empathy
and love can then extend from the family group to wider
social situations, ultimately reaching the community,
extending to nations and even worldwide.

It
stands to reason then, if the above is the case,
that when the elements of love are missing within
the family environment, the results can affect how
individuals view other humans, and the ability to
originate or reciprocate love may suffer as a result.

It
is believed that empathy previews love. Animals have
displayed empathy and manifested it in social groupings
and behavior. One group of animals that has been
documented in this regard, are the chimpanzees, which
seemed to have displayed the closest to human feelings.

The
evolutionary history of love, is not simply an aspect
or an intensification of empathy, nor is it to be
identified with sexuality, since it results in behavior
patterns that have been determined to be nearly universal
amongst all living creatures. Though empathy and
sexuality are apparent in the behavior of animals,
there is little evidence of love at the human level,
in most patterns of animal behavior.

Love
appears to be an eminently human phenomenon, which
involves potential, significance, and survival in
individuals and groups. Love in its most developed
form is a necessity for the course of human development.
While a more meticulous "scientific" explanation
of love which explains it as a physiological and
neurological interpersonal behavior or individual experience
is necessary, it should not be viewed as an accident,
or, in any way, undeserved blessing for humanity.

Empathy,
like love, is a most important feature of human experience.
The evolution of empathy and evolution of love, are
separate, yet related. On a scientific level, empathy
is a total form of perception, not only developed in
humans, but animals, as well. While it is doubtful
whether there has been much separate development in
the human species of an empathetic capability, it is
likely that from the time of the existence of groups,
it has been in notable existence.

With
regard to the perception of animals, the need was
present, due to the fact that it was necessary to
interpret the appearance of other animals in order
to predict behavior and take appropriate action:
running away, attacking, hiding, playing dead, etc.

For
the most part, empathy was a neutral mode of perception,
in the sense that it could be used in relation to
enemies or potential enemies, family or friends,
or simply as a mode of obtaining information. In
some sense a precursor of love, empathy is a major
component of love, or essential precondition for
love.

One
of the earliest writers to discuss empathy was Edith
Stein (1917/1970), who proposed that empathy was
a kind of act of perceiving sui generis; the experience
of foreign consciousness in general; the way in which "man
grasps the psychic life of his fellow man."

Other
descriptions of empathy involve understanding another's
affective experience, triggered by expressive signals.
It appears to be a fundamental aspect of perception,
part of the process by which one relates one's current
perception to the already formed structure of one's
experience.

The
scientific exploration of the process of empathy
does not seem to have progressed very far. There
seems to be a close relation between bodily posture
and action and the perception of the feelings of others.

The
benefits of empathy clearly increase fitness, and
value for survival, insofar as it serves as a mode
of communication between members of a family, a group
or even where hostility exists. It is necessary that
communication between members of a group exist, in
order for group behavior to function in an organized
way. Emotional states must be recognized, so that survival-related
actions can be recognized.

When
examining evolutionary scenarios for love, systematic
or scientific treatment of love by philosophers,
psychologists, evolutionists, neurologists and even
anthropologists, has been sparse. It is often still
considered an almost taboo subject, not serious,
not appropriate for scientific study. This is not
because there is any lack of literature about love;
but simply because the scientific basis for it seems
to be questioned. There has been a particularly interest
in recording love behavior and experience, as demonstrated,
for example, in Sternberg and Barnes Psychology of
Love (1988):

Without
question the major preoccupation of Americans is
love... Don't leave home without it... [rather than
the American Express card].(Mursten, pp. 13, 37)...
Love had always been the one thing - perhaps the
only thing - beyond the research scientist's ever-extending
grasp.... Dozens of love studies appear annually
in the journals; dozens more are presented at regional
and national conventions. There is even a Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships that fills a
large proportion of its pages with studies of love.... "How do I love thee?" - Elizabeth
Barrett Browning might have written in the 1980's
- "Let
me count the articles". [Nevertheless]... the
science of love is still in its infancy" (Rubin,
pp. vii-viii).

Major
philosophers, beginning with Plato, wrote in the
Symposium of it as a fundamental issue, the relation
between love and desire.

Pascal,
before his renunciation of the world, produced a
Discours sur les passions de l'amour. Schopenhauer
indicated that the subject of love had, in fact,
forced itself on him objectively and had become inseparable
from his consideration of the world (pp. 169-170):

Instead
of wondering why a philosopher for once in a way
writes on this subject which has been constantly
the theme of poets, should we be surprised that love
which plays such an important role in a man's life,
has scarcely ever been considered at all by philosophers...
I have decided to spend my life in thinking about
it.

Erich
Fromm, one of the few known psychologists to discuss
love in depth, has argued that any theory of love
must start with a theory of man, human existence,
as a proposed answer to one of the dilemmas of humanity.
According to Fromm, love lies in the achievement
of fusion with another person; the desire for interpersonal
fusion, is the most prevailing motivation in the
human race:

Love
is the active concern for the life and the growth
of that which we love. I want the loved person to
grow and unfold for his own sake (Fromm, p. 28).

Freud,
on the other hand, could see nothing good, or indeed
no significance in love, proclaiming it an irrational
part of human behavior. While he promised a book
on the love life of humankind, it was never produced,
though he did amend published essays on sexuality.
According to reports, toward the end of his life,
he said that we know very little about love. In contrast,
some renowned authors have demonstrated, through
their writing, that they understand the significance
of love. J.Z. Young commented in Programs of the
Brain (1978 p. 143) that:

Attempting
to define love is indeed a hazardous enterprise,
more suitable for a poet than for a scientist....
[but he added] What would be the use of a neuroscience
that cannot tell us anything about love?

On
the basis of the parental relationship, it is apparent
that it is dependent upon empathy, as a mode of perception
of a child's state and needs. As the social structure
and interaction of human groups became more complex,
the extended parental relationship acquired a new
importance, as the stage at which the child acquired
the capabilities and the awareness necessary to be
successful within a group.

Obviously,
the parental relationship was a precursor to the
development of the child’s communication abilities within a group.
Love then would become essential, in order to increase
the fitness of the parental relationship, as well as
the group as a whole.

Contrasting
this with sexual behavior, in humans, and in many
animals, is self-regarding (for the individual),
competitive, aggressive, possibly violent, random
in the male, and divisive rather than co-operative.
Though sexual selection may contribute in evolutionary
terms to bodily physical change, stronger, more aggressive,
highly charged individuals, it has not shown to contribute
to the specifically human requirements in group cohesion,
and the acquisition of social and other skills.

Love,
in and of itself, has had a very good press for thousands
of years. We cannot ignore love as an experience, as
a fact; we cannot treat it as trivial, familiar and
so well understood. The power of love can tell us
something about our natures.

Love,
on some level, could be responsible for the dissolution
of the obsession of one's self; love could be the
method by which we understand ourselves, humanity,
sense of purpose. The sympathy for existence, by
loving, enables the sense and reality of the beauty
of others. Intellect needs love to avoid the coldness
the lack of it, while love needs intellect, to keep
a sense of mental balance. While we may drift with
intellect; we satiate our soles with love. Love is
a total emotional state, as specific for humanity
as language.

Love
is what usually drives human being into human relationships – which
begins with dating. Love is the motivating factor for
many aspects of life, as well. However, in the dating
world, love is often the catalyst – from the first
sight of someone, to getting to know them, to becoming
involved in a more long-term commitment. Were it not
for love, or the chance of it, many people wouldn’t
bother to date, let alone get to know someone well
enough to embark upon a romantic commitment. Therefore,
the importance of love in our lives, within romantic
involvements in particular, cannot be minimized.
Understanding what it is, and the evolution of it,
may be a reminder of what our motivations are in
developing our interpersonal relationships, as well
as our humanity.

Other Resources:

Note: Online Dating Magazine does not sell text links anywhere on the site, so please don't email asking about text links. Any links we have are affiliate links, resources we find useful, links to other sites we run or long-time magazine sponsors. We do have graphic ad options in our Advertising section.